JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. These appeals which emanate from a judgment passed in Regular Second Appeal and an order passed in Review Petition by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (“High Court”) in RSA No. 3619 of 2012 (O&M) and RA-RS No. 87 of 2019 take exception to the judgment dated 08.02.2019 and order dated 10.07.2019 respectively, by which Regular Second Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the review petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

FACTS

2. The appellant (plaintiff) entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 22.06.2003 with the respondent (defendant) for purchase of land admeasuring 12 marlas, on which a factory stood, situated at village Gowar/Gohwar, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab (“the subject property”). The respondent, a co-owner of the subject property along with his brother, agreed to sell his half share for a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. An earnest money amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was paid by the appellant at the time of execution of the Agreement, which stipulated 22.06.2004 as the date for execution of the Sale Deed, further providing that if the Sale Deed could not be executed for any reason, the respondent would refund the earnest money.

3. By a further Agreement dated 21.06.2004, the date for execution of the Sale Deed was extended by mutual consent to 22.07.2004. A third Agreement dated 21.07.2004 recorded the receipt by the respondent of a further sum of Rs.60,000/-, extended the date for execution of the Sale Deed to 22.01.2005 for payment of the balance consideration, and provided that all other terms of the first Agreement would continue to apply.

4. The appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2005 and 24.01.2005 – the Sub-Registrar’s office having remained closed on 21.01.2005, and 22.01.2005 and 23.01.2005 being Saturday and Sunday respectively, but the respondent did not attend.

5. In 2006, the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract founded on the Agreement dated 22.06.2003 and its extensions dated 21.06.2004 and 21.07.2004, with an alternative prayer for recovery of Rs.19.20 lakh (Rs.9.60 lakh as earnest money and an equal sum as damages).

6. The respondent, in his written statement, denied execution of the Agreement and pleaded that true market value of the subject property exceeded Rs.50 lakh. He asserted that the documents were executed as collateral security for a separate arrangement to facilitate his travel abroad through a travel agent associated with the appellant, under which he had signed blank papers and issued a cheque as security for a Rs.15,50,000/- transaction, and that the appellant, in connivance with the deed-writer and marginal witnesses, converted these blank papers into an Agreement to Sell.

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

7. By judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010, the Trial Court held that the appellant had proved execution of the Agreement to Sell and its extensions, that the respondent had accepted Rs.9 lakh as consideration, that the date for execution of the Sale Deed stood validly extended up to 22.01.2005 and that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his obligations. It nonetheless held that the Agreement did not provide for enforcement of the Sale Deed through the process of law in the event of default, but only for the refund of the earnest money, and accordingly declined specific performance, decreeing instead recovery of Rs.9 lakh with interest at 9% per annum till institution of the suit, and pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum till realisation.

JUDGMENT OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT

8. In appeal, the First Appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 01.05.2012, affirmed that the appellant had proved execution of the Agreement through the scribe and attesting witnesses, found the respondent’s version regarding the VISA arrangement implausible for want of any handwriting or documentary evidence and in view of the respondent’s admitted signatures on all thr